Choosing a management style: answer key

English for Professional Purposes

Author

Affiliation

Ben Stanley

Department of Social Sciences, SWPS University

Published

September 1, 2026

Leadership Styles Reference

Coaching: Focuses on developing individuals’ strengths and addressing weaknesses for long-term growth
Visionary: Provides inspiring long-term direction and purpose, especially during times of change
Affiliative: Builds harmony, emotional bonds, and heals rifts in teams experiencing stress
Democratic: Values input from all team members, builds consensus and commitment
Pacesetting: Sets high standards through personal example, emphasizing excellence and quick results
Commanding: Provides clear direction in crisis situations, requiring immediate compliance

Why it’s appropriate: The affiliative leadership style focuses on healing rifts, rebuilding trust, and improving morale—exactly what’s needed in this post-restructuring scenario. This approach prioritizes emotional connections, creates a supportive environment, and helps employees feel valued during uncertain times.
Why it might backfire: An exclusively affiliative approach might not address the underlying business pressures that necessitated the restructuring. Without also providing clear direction about the company’s future, employees might feel emotionally supported but still lack the strategic vision needed to regain momentum.

The visionary style could complement the affiliative approach by providing a compelling future direction that helps employees see beyond the current difficulties.

Commanding: Would likely worsen the already low morale by seeming dictatorial during a sensitive time.
Pacesetting: Setting high-performance expectations when employees are already struggling would increase anxiety and potentially lead to burnout.

Why it’s appropriate: The pacesetting style works well with highly skilled professionals who need to deliver exceptional results under pressure. The project leader can set high standards, lead by example, and create the focused intensity needed to meet strict deadlines while maintaining quality.
Why it might backfire: Sustained pacesetting without sufficient support could lead to burnout among team members. The intense pressure could also stifle creativity that might be needed for innovative financial solutions.

Incorporating coaching elements would help ensure team members are developing skills to handle the pressure while providing the support needed to avoid burnout.

Democratic: The tight timeline and non-negotiable quality standards make extended collaborative decision-making impractical.
Laissez-faire: The high stakes and complexity require active leadership rather than a hands-off approach.

Why it’s appropriate: The democratic leadership style encourages input from all team members, which is essential when bringing together specialists from different departments. This approach validates each perspective, builds ownership of decisions, and facilitates integration of diverse expertise.
Why it might backfire: The democratic process can be time-consuming, and initial conflicts might be prolonged without sufficient structure. If the leader doesn’t establish some boundaries, the team might struggle to move from discussion to decision-making.

A visionary component would help unify the cross-functional team around a compelling shared goal, transcending departmental differences.

Commanding: Would likely intensify departmental divisions and discourage the cross-functional collaboration needed.
Pacesetting: Could create unhealthy competition between departments rather than fostering collaboration.

Why it’s appropriate: The coaching leadership style focuses on developing individual strengths while addressing weaknesses. This approach allows the manager to acknowledge the designer’s technical excellence while working on interpersonal skills, helping them understand how their behavior affects others and the broader team dynamic.
Why it might backfire: If the star employee resists feedback or views coaching as criticism of their work rather than their behavior, they might become defensive or disengaged.

Including affiliative elements helps build rapport with the designer while fostering a team environment where everyone feels valued, potentially reducing tension.

Commanding: Would likely create resentment in a creative professional accustomed to autonomy and might prompt them to leave.
Democratic: Might inadvertently give the difficult employee too much influence over team decisions, potentially reinforcing their problematic behavior.

Why it’s appropriate: The commanding leadership style is designed precisely for crisis situations where immediate action and clear direction are essential. With a potential safety issue that could harm consumers, the CEO needs to make swift decisions, provide unambiguous guidance, and ensure all parts of the organization align quickly with the response plan.
Why it might backfire: Prolonged use of the commanding style could stifle the input needed from technical experts and frontline employees who might have crucial information about the product issue. It might also create a culture of fear that discourages honest reporting about the causes of the defect.

Once the immediate crisis response is underway, incorporating visionary leadership helps frame the situation as an opportunity to strengthen safety protocols and rebuild trust, giving employees a sense of purpose during a difficult time.

Democratic: The urgent nature of the safety crisis doesn’t allow time for extensive consultation and consensus-building that democratic leadership requires.
Affiliative: While maintaining morale is important, prioritizing harmony and positive feelings over direct action could delay the necessary tough decisions about recalls or public statements.